Precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements

Summary This study was performed to determine the precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements, to compare bone mineral density (BMD) of subjects measured by DEXA and radionuclide dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA), and to evaluate different absorber materials for use with an external standard. Short-term precision (% coefficient of variation, CV) was determined in 6 subjects scanned six times each with repositioning, initially and 9 months later. Mean CV was 1.04% for spine and 2.13% for femoral neck BMD; for whole-body measurements in 5 subjects, mean CV was 0.64% for BMD, 2.2% for fat, and 1.05% for lean body mass. Precision of aluminum phantom measurements made over a 9-month period was 0.89% with the phantom in 15.2 cm, 0.88% in 20.3 cm, and 1.42% in 27.9 cm of water. In 51 subjects, BMD by DEXA and DPA was correlated for the spine (r=0.98,P=0.000) and femoral neck (r=0.91,P=0.000). Spine BMD was 4.5% lower and femoral neck BMD 3.1% higher by DEXA than by DPA. An aluminum phantom was scanned repeatedly, in both water and in an oil/water (30∶70) mixture at thicknesses ranging from 15.2 through 27.9 cm. Phantom BMD was lower at 15.2 cm than at higher thicknesses of both water and oil/water (P=0.05, ANOVA). The phantom was scanned repeatedly in 15.2, 20.3, and 27.9 cm of water over a 9 month period. In 15.2 and 20.3 cm of water, phantom BMD did not vary significantly whereas in 27.9 cm of water (equivalent to a human over 30 cm thick), phantom BMD increased 2.3% (P=0.01) over the 9 months.     

Sensitivity of dual-photon absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis

Summary Lumbar spine bone mass and density were measured with Dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) in 60 patients with crush fractures and 60 age-matched normal women. Short-term reproducibility of bone mineral density (BMD) was 1.3% in normal women and 2.5% in osteoporotic women; long-term reproducibility in normal women was 2.2%. The reproducibility of bone mineral content (BMC) seemed to be poorer than that of BMD. In this study, aortic calcifications had no effect on BMD, and one or two crush fractures in the L2–L4 region increased BMD by an average of 3% (0–10%). Lumbar spine DPA provided high sensitivity for these younger crush fracture osteoporotic patients (x=65 years). The sensitivity at 95% specificity was 74% for BMD and 73% for BMC. This sensitivity is substantially better than that reported for DPA instruments giving higher variances or for quantitative computed tomography.     

Precision and sensitivity of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis.

This study evaluated the performance of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) with regard to (1) the correlation with dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA), (2) the ability to discriminate between normal and osteoporotic patients, and (3) long-term reproducibility. The bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine in 112 subjects, both normal and osteoporotic, was measured with DPA and DEXA (Lunar Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin) of the spine. The femur BMD of 22 cases was also measured with both machines. The results for the two techniques were highly correlated (r greater than 0.9, SEM = 0.02 to 0.04 g/cm2). BMD was measured using DEXA in 80 women (mean age = 61 years) with established spinal osteoporosis and 110 normal age-matched controls. The osteoporotic patients had significantly reduced spine and femur BMDs compared to the controls: -23% for L2-4 BMD (Z score = 2.6) and -13 to -20% for femur BMD (Z score = 1.1-1.3). L2-4 BMD had the best discriminative value, with an area under the ROC curve of 94%; the Ward's triangle BMD had an area of 84%. The precision error in vitro in a phantom over a 1-year period was 0.7%. The measured precision in vivo with young adults was approximately 1% (SD = 0.012 g/cm2) for L2-4 BMD and 1.7-2.3% (SD = 0.015-0.022 g/cm2) for femur over the 1 year period. The reproducibility was not as good for osteoporotic patients (SD = 0.017 g/cm2).     

A population-based comparison of quantitative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with dual-photon absorptiometry of the spine and hip

Summary Dual photon absorptiometry (DPA) is currently the most widely used method for noninvasive bone mineral density (BMD) measurement of the axial skeleton. Dual energy X-ray absorptimetry (DEXA) is a recently developed technique that uses an X-ray tube as a photon source; it has demonstrated several significant advantages over DPA in preliminary studies. We report here a quantitative comparison of the DEXA and DPA technologies using a Hologic DEXA (Hologic QDR model 1000, Waltham, MA) scanner and a Lunar DPA (Lunar Radiation DP3, gandolineum-153 source) scanner at both the proximal femur and lumbar spine sites using bone density measurements from a populationbased sample of older white men and women who had complete DEXA and DPA measurements of the hip (n=217) or the spine (n=176). To examine the relationship of BMD measured by the DPA scanner to BMD measured on the DEXA scanner, normal least squares linear regression was used to regress the DPA BMD on the DEXA BMD for each site. DEXA values were consistently lower than DPA values, with an average difference of 16%. The squared multiple correlation (R²) values were at or above 0.95 for almost all sites, with Ward's triangle having the lowest value (0.89). The slope for all sites was similar, ranging from 0.94 to 1.1. Research and clinical centers that wish to change to DEXA technology because of its shorter examination time and greater precision can therefore compare DEXA with DPA values using representative convesion factors.     

Rapid small-animal dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using digital radiography.

Although dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is an established technique for clinical assessment of areal bone mineral density (BMD), the spatial resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, scan time, and availability of clinical DEXA systems may be limiting factors for small-animal investigations using a large number of specimens. To avoid these limitations, we have implemented a clinical digital radiography system to perform rapid area DEXA analysis on in vitro rat bone specimens. A crossed step-wedge (comprised of epoxy-based materials that mimic the radiographic properties of tissue and bone) was used to calibrate the system. Digital radiographs of bone specimens (pelvis, spine, femur, and tibia from sham-ovariectomized [SHAM] and ovariectomized [OVX] rats) were obtained at 40 kilovolt peak (kVp) and 125 kVp, and the resulting areal BMD values were compared with those obtained with a clinical fan-beam DEXA system (Hologics QDR 4500). Our investigation indicates that the cross-wedge calibrated (CWC) DEXA technique provides high-precision measurements of bone mineral content (BMC; CV = 0.6%) and BMD (CV = 0.8%) within a short acquisition time (<30 s). Areal BMD measurements reported by the CWC-DEXA system are within 8.5% of those reported by a clinical fan-beam scanner, and BMC values are within 5% of the known value of test specimens. In an in vivo application, the CWC-DEXA system is capable of reporting significant differences between study groups (SHAM and OVX) that are not reported by a clinical fan-beam DEXA system, because of the reduced variance and improved object segmentation provided by the CWC-DEXA system.     

Comparison of dual-photon absorptiometry systems for total-body bone and soft tissue measurements: dual-energy X-rays versus gadolinium 153.

A total of 81 subjects (41 males and 40 females) were scanned by dual-photon absorptiometry by 153Gd source (DPA; Lunar DP4) and by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA; Lunar-DPX) within a 24 h period. Total-body bone mineral density (TBMD), calcium content (Ca), and soft tissue mass (ST) were determined with a precision of about 1-1.5% using DPA and 0.5-1.0% using DEXA. Measurements of TBMD, Ca, ST, bone area (area), percentage fat, and regional bone mineral densities (BMD) were compared. Paired t-tests showed small but significant differences between all measurements. Correlations (r) for TBMD, Ca, area, ST, percentage fat, arm BMD, leg BMD, and trunk BMD were 0.99, 0.99, 0.97, 0.99, 0.97, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98. There were small systematic differences for TBMD (less than 1%), calcium (3%), bone area (3%), soft tissue mass (7%), and percentage fat (9%) between the two approaches. Regression equations are given relating these measurements.     

Accuracy and precision of in vivo bone mineral measurements in sheep using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

We evaluated the precision and accuracy of in vivo measurements of spine bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) in five ewes using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Lunar DPX-L). The short-term in vivo reproducibility expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV) varied from 0.9 to 1.6% for spine BMD and from 1 to 3.1% for spine BMC. The ex vivo measurements, performed in 20 cm of water to simulate soft tissue thickness, correlated closely with the in vivo measurements, yielding an r value of 0.98 and 0.97 for spine BMD and BMC, respectively. The accuracy was determined by comparing the total BMC of each vertebra measured in vivo with the corresponding ash weight. The correlation coefficient between the two measurements was r = 0.98, with an accuracy error of 5.6%. We concluded that the DXA allows a precise and accurate measurement of spine bone mineral in live ewes using the methodology designed for humans. Received: 19 March 1999 / Accepted: 26 July 1999     

Bone mineral density and mass by total-body dual-photon absorptiometry in normal white and Asian men.

Total body bone mineral density, total body bone mineral mass (TBBM), and bone mineral densities (BMD) in seven different regions of the body were measured in 238 normal men (154 Whites and 84 Asians), age 22-94, using dual-photon absorptiometry. Although Asian men had lower TBBM and BMD in all regions (p less than 0.05) except the arms, when multiple regression was done with body weight, height, and age, no significant differences were found between Asians and Whites for bone measurements. Thus lower bone mineral densities and bone mineral mass in Asian males compared to White males appear to be due to differences in height and weight rather than to ethnic differences. The two groups were combined to derive multiple regression equations for TBBM, total-body BMD, and regional BMD. Age, weight, and height were significant in the multiple regression equations for TBBM, ribs BMD, and legs BMD. Age and weight, but not height, were significant for total-body BMD, trunk BMD, spine BMD, arm BMD, and pelvis BMD. Weight, but neither height nor age, was significant for head BMD. These reference normal bone mineral density and bone mineral mass standards are appropriate for both Asian and White males when adjusted for weight, height, and age.     

Bone mass measurements in the distal forearm using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and gamma-ray computed tomography: a longitudinal, in vivo comparative study.

Indices of bone mass were measured in 23 volunteers weekly over 14-16 weeks using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and special-purpose computed tomography (gamma-CT). In vitro, the precision for both systems was excellent (coefficient of variation less than 0.5%). Over 4 months, the precision in vivo (average CV for all subjects) for DEXA measures (BMD, g/cm2, and BMC, g/cm) varied between 0.6 and 1.1%; with gamma-CT it varied from 1.1% for TBD (g/cm3) to 2.2% for CBD (g/cm3). Correlation between the indices of bone mass measured using DEXA and gamma-CT at the ultradistal site was moderate, but these indices were not correlated at the distal third site. When BMD and BMC were derived from the CT index IBD, however, the correlation between these gamma-CT indices and the corresponding DEXA indices was high for both ultradistal and proximal radial sites.     

Reproducibility of lateral spine scans using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

Summary Reproducibility of lateral spine dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (LAT DEXA) scans using a Lunar DPX-L scanner was assessed in a cadaveric phantom and in patients. One hundred phantom measurements over 7 months demonstrated a longitudinal stability of 1.7% (coefficient of variation, CV). Additional scans were performed with the phantom rotated by up to 20° in each of the three orthogonal planes to assess the effects of variable patient positioning. Horizontal and vertical rotation of the spine had little effect on the estimated bone mineral density (BMD), however, axial rotation of greater than 8° led to errors in the BMD measurement. One hundred consecutive patients had two lateral scans performed within 1 month. BMD (range 0.10–1.6 g/cm²) was determined for each scan by one operator. Significant overlap from ribs and pelvis was often seen with L2 and L4 vertebrae but one vertebra (L3) could be measured in every case. Intraoperator and interoperator variability was assessed by three experienced operators, each analyzing 10 patients' scans on five separate occasions, and was found to be less than 1.1% for a single vertebra. BMD estimation of vertebral bodies and midslices by lateral DEXA scans (CV% of 3.8% and 4.6%) have a 95% confidence interval of 0.074 g/cm² and 0.096 g/cm², respectively for two vertebrae. This variability is due mainly to axial rotation, with operator variability, horizontal rotation, and vertical rotation having little effect on BMD estimation.     

In vitro comparability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) bone densitometers

Summary Six Hologic QDR-1000 DEXA bone densitometers at different centers across the USA were compared to determine the intermachine variability. Nine scans in succession were acquired on each machine using a single anthropomorphic lumbar spine phantom (manufactured by Hologic). Values for BMC, area, and BMD were recorded for each measurement. Means, standard deviations (SD), and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for each machine. All the CVs (BMC, area, BMD) were less than 1% (range 0.3%–0.6%). The CV of the means at the six sites were 0.4%, 0.6%, and 0.5% for BMC, area, and BMD, respectively. Although several significant differences for BMC, area, and BMD were noted by ANOVA between machines at different sites, the difference between the highest and lowest means of the individual machines was only 1.1%, 1.31%, and 1.07% for BMC, area, and BMD. The small variations between the DEXA systems are encouraging for researchers involved in multicenter trials in which data are pooled.     

An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry

Dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) is a well-established procedure for measuring bone mineral density (BMD). Recently, dual-energy X-ray absorptiomery (DXA) has become available, which has the ability to measure BMD both regionally and in the total body (TB). We have evaluated the in vivo and in vitro precision of a DXA instrument and compared it with a DPA instrument with similar software characteristics.The short-term precision of BMD measurements using DXA was assessed in 65 postmenopausal women who had duplicate scans performed, with repositioning between scans. Precision was 0.9% in the lumbar spine and 1.4% in the femoral neck.The midterm precision of DXA was compared with DPA by scanning 10 volunteers a mean of four times over 24 weeks, on both instruments. The precision of the bone mineral content (BMC) and area measurements was significantly better (P<0.05) with DXA than with DPA. Long-term in vitro precision was assessed by scanning an aluminium spine phantom over 42 weeks, and a cadaveric sample over 52 weeks, on both instruments. Precision was similar using the aluminium phantom, but was significantly improved (P<0.001) when using DXA for scanning the cadaveric sample.Highly significant correlations (allP<0.001) of BMD, BMC and area measurements were observed when 70 volunteers were scanned on both instruments. However, there was a systematic difference in BMD values between the instruments. The precision of TB composition measurements assessed in 16 volunteers, over a 16-week period, were TB BMD 0.65%, TB lean tissue 1.47%, and TB fat tissue 2.73%. The correlation between weight measured by electronic scales and TB mass as measured by DXA, which was assessed in 70 volunteers, was excellent (r=0.99,p<0.001).We conclude that DXA offers improvements in measuring BMD over DPA in terms of faster scanning times and improved resolution, resulting in better precision, with the additional advantage of the ability to measure TB composition with high precision.     

Measurement of bone by dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)

Bone densitometry is essential for (a) confirming a diagnosis of osteoporosis, (b) determining the degree of osteopenia and risk of fracture, and (c) monitoring the response of bone to therapeutic agents. Fracture risk at specific axial fracture sites (spine, proximal femur), is associated directly with bone mineral density (BMD) at these sites. ROC analysis demonstrates that the diagnostic sensitivity of spine and femur BMD for spine and/or femur fracture is substantially superior to BMD of appendicular sites in the immediate postmenopausal period. Femoral neck BMD affords high diagnostic sensitivity for proximal femur fracture even in the elderly. Recent prospective studies have shown that bone densitometry can predict future fractures in postmenopausal women. Conventional DPA with 153Gd provides high accuracy for total body, spine, and femur BMD with adequate clinical precision of 1%, 2% and 3%, respectively. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), using either switched kVp or by k-edge filtering, offers better precision; typically the precision error is halved. The higher flux available from x-ray sources provides other advantages over DPA, including: improved spatial resolution (2 vs 4 mm), reduced radiation exposure (1 vs 2 mrem), and decreased scan times (3 to 10X). Improved DPA systems, with automatic gain stabilization to minimize drift, could offer clinical precision comparable to DEXA but the scan time and spatial resolution remain as before. Both DPA and DEXA allow detection of therapeutic efficacy in individual patients over the first year or two of therapy.     

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the forearm: reproducibility and correlation with single-photon absorptiometry.

Although single-photon absorptiometry (SPA) has been the predominant tool used to assess bone mineral density (BMD) in the forearm, the development of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) provides the benefits of greater source stability, reduced scanning time, and improved image resolution compared to SPA. In the present study we used the DEXA bone densitometer (Hologic, Inc., Waltham, MA) to (1) measure BMD in the one-third radius and ultradistal radius; (2) examine the reproducibility of these BMD measurements; and (3) compare the BMD at the one-third radius with SPA (SP2, Lunar Corp., Madison, WI). In 65 normal women (ages 22-74 years) we examined changes in the forearm DEXA BMD with age, revealing significant quadratic regression equations. The reproducibility of DEXA BMD (mean +/- SEM) in 7 normal subjects aged 22-50 years is 0.85 +/- 0.16% for the predominantly cortical one-third radius site and 0.97 +/- 0.15% for the more trabecular ultradistal site. The regression relationship between DEXA and SPA of the one-third radius in 26 subjects (ages 22-68 years) is DEXA BMD = 0.105 + 0.826 (SPA BMD); R = 0.97, R2 = 0.94, p less than 0.0001. Bone densitometry of the forearm using DEXA may be performed relatively rapidly, providing reproducibility and image resolution that are generally superior to those observed with SPA.     

Bone mass and density in preadolescent boys with and without Down syndrome

Summary

Preadolescent boys with Down syndrome at 7–10 years of age have lower bone mass and density in the pelvis than age-matched children without Down syndrome. However, bone mass and density of total body less head and lumbar spine are not different between these two groups.

Introduction

This study aimed to assess bone mineral content (BMC) and density (BMD) in preadolescent boys with and without Down syndrome (DS) at 7–10 years of age.

Methods

Eleven preadolescent boys with DS and eleven age-matched children without DS participated in this study. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMC and BMD in whole body and lumbar spine. Both BMC and BMD of total body less head (TBLH) and lumbar spine (vertebrae L2–L4) were compared between the two groups, with and without adjusting for physical characteristics such as bone area, body height, and total lean mass. Two bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) variables were calculated to estimate volumetric BMD in the lumbar spine.

Results

Both BMC and BMD in the pelvis were lower in the DS group, after adjusting for physical characteristics. However, with and without adjusting for physical characteristics, the two groups were not different in BMC and BMD of the arms, legs, and TBLH from the whole body scan and in BMC, BMD, and BMAD of the lumbar spine from the lumbar spine scan.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that the pelvis may be the first site to show the significant difference in BMC and BMD between preadolescent boys with and without DS. It also suggests that significantly lower BMC and BMD in whole body and lumbar spine, which is usually observed in young adults with DS, may not occur before adolescence.     

Detection of prefracture spinal osteoporosis using bone mineral absorptiometry

Bone mineral measurements have been criticized for their inability to clearly distinguish fracture and "nonfracture" populations. However, this failure is not unexpected, since some individuals in the "nonfracture" group have low bone mass and are at increased risk but have not yet experienced fractures. Although standard radiographs are not sensitive indicators of vertebral demineralization, they do identify some of the "prefracture" osteoporotic subpopulation within the nonfracture group. Prospective follow-up of 536 Japanese-American women demonstrated that 14 new spine fractures occurred in the prefracture osteoporosis group, whereas none occurred in the nonosteoporotic group (p less than or equal to 0.03). However, bone mineral content (BMC) measurements using photon absorptiometry were much more accurate than radiographs as indicators of spine fracture risk. BMC values were somewhat higher in the prefracture group than in those with existing fractures, but values for both groups were significantly lower than in nonosteoporotic patients even after adjusting for age, height, and weight (p less than 0.0001). The magnitude of the difference was proportional to the trabecular bone content of the measurement site; the differences were greatest for the os calcis and lumbar spine, smaller for the distal radius, and least for the proximal radius. The prevalence of spinal osteoporosis (including both fracture and prefracture cases) was inversely proportional to BMC (p less than 0.0001). Again, the relations were strongest for the os calcis and lumbar spine. These results indicate that BMC measurements are valid indicators of osteoporosis status, particularly when osteoporosis is defined to include both patients with existing fractures and those at increased risk for fractures. However, dual-photon spine BMC was adversely influenced by the presence of aortic calcification, arthritis, and other disease processes (p less than or equal to 0.0001).     

A comparison of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry systems for spinal bone mineral measurement

Summary Two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) systems—the Hologic QDR-1000 and the Norland XR-26 bone densitometers—were evaluated in terms of precision, accuracy, linearity of response, X-ray exposure, and correlation of in vivo spinal measurements. In vitro precision and accuracy studies were performed using the Hologic anthropomorphic spine phantom; linearity of response was determined with increasing thicknesses of aluminum slabs and concentrations of Tums E-X in a constant-level water bath. Both systems were comparable in precision, achieving coefficients of variation (CVs) of less than 1% in bone mineral content (BMC, g), bone area (cm²), and bone mineral density (BMD, g/cm²). Both were accurate in their determination of BMC, bone area, and BMD with reference to the Hologic spine phantom. Both systems also showed good BMC and BMD linearity of response. Measured X-ray skin surface exposures for the Hologic and the Norland systems were 3.11 and 3.02 mR, respectively. In vivo spinal measurements (n=65) on the systems were highly correlated (BMC: r=0.993, SEE=1.770 g; area: r=0.984, SEE=1.713 cm²; BMD: r=0.990, SEE=0.028 g/cm²). In conclusion, both systems are comparable in terms of precision, accuracy, linearity of response, and exposure efficiency.     

Single X-ray absorptiometry: Performance characteristics and comparison with single photon absorptiometry

The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new device for measurement of forearm bone mass using the technique of single X-ray absorptiometry (SXA, DTX-100; Osteometer A/S, Rødovre, Denmark), and to compare the performance with the more traditional single photon absorptiometry (SPA, DT 100; Osteometer A/S, Rødovre, Denmark). The SPA phantom measurements showed a coefficient of variation of 0.43% and 0.42% for bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD), respectively (39 months including seven source changes). The SXA precision errors were slightly lower with values of 0.30% and 0.30%, respectively. The patient measurements showed SPA coefficients of variation of 0.85% and 0.99% (BMC and BMD) and SXA coefficients of variation of 0.56% and 0.83%, respectively. The correlation between SPA and SXA values performed in 377 individuals yielded r values of 0.99 an 0.98 for BMC and BMD, respectively. The correlations between SXA measurements of the dominant and non-dominant forearm yielded anr-value of 0.95, with a slope of 0.949 (p<0.001) and an intercept of 0.204 (p<0.05). The non-dominant forearm thus had approximately 3% lower BMC than the dominant (the same was true for BMD). Correlations to spine and femur ranged fromr=0.48 tor=0.75. In conclusion, the new single X-ray absorptiometry forearm bone densitometer described in this paper has performance characteristics which allows it to be used both for diagnostic purposes and for the follow-up of treatment.     

Pamidronate reduces PTH-mediated bone loss in a gene transfer model of hyperparathyroidism in rats.

We evaluated spinal and femoral bone mass and density utilizing dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in rats in which severe hyperparathyroidism was produced by the expression of the gene for human PTH-(1-84) (hPTH). This gene was incorporated into a retroviral vector that was transfected into fibroblasts which were subsequently injected into their peritoneal cavities. Further, we examined the effect of the administration of pamidronate on bone mass and density in the presence of extremely high concentrations of hPTH. Three groups of rats were studied. Groups 1 and 2 receive the hPTH-secreting fibroblasts; group 2 subsequently received pamidronate (2.5 mg/kg IV) 18 and 27 days after receiving the fibroblasts. These animals developed levels of hPTH greater than 1.0 microgram/liter and became hypercalcemia within 20 days. These animals became lethargic and were significantly lower in weight than age-matched controls (group 3, p less than 0.05). After accounting for the animal weight there was a further significant decrease in bone mineral content and density (BMC and BMD) on day 29 attributable to hPTH-mediated bone loss. Treatment with pamidronate resulted in a higher BMC of the lumbar spine than in the untreated animals, with elevated concentrations of hPTH. The BMD was significantly higher at both the lumbar spine and femur in the pamidronate-treated animals (p less than 0.05). The CV of paired measurements of BMD was 2.7% at the spine and 1.5% of a femur, respectively. The BMC of the lumbar spine and femur was closely correlated with the ashed weight of the same bones (r = 0.92 and 0.85, respectively).     

Dual photon absorptiometry of the proximal tibia

Summary Bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) of the proximal tibia were determined by dual photon absorptiometry on 44 women, aged 23–87 years. The area of the tibia measured was a 2.01 cm region immediately distal to the medial and lateral tuberosities. Values of BMC ranged between 5.09 and 14.57 g and BMD between 0.380 and 1.180 g/cm². Both tibial BMC and BMD declined with age and tibial BMD was significantly correlated with lumbar spine (r=0.70), femoral neck (r=0.73), and femoral trochanter (r=0.74). However, the large standard errors of estimate (SEE) (0.08–0.14 g/cm²) do not allow for reliable prediction in an individual of other skeletal sites by the tibia. Repeated measurements demonstrated that dual photon absorptiometry of the proximal tibia is a reliable measurement and may be a useful tool in the monitoring of therapeutic or intervention modalities in those individuals with skeletal diseases in whom measurement of the lumbar spine or proximal femur may not be possible.